In Strange Aeons, especially in the dreamlands quests of book three, there are lots of potential "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situations.
But a LOT of those enemies are really evil on both sides! Can a paladin deal with those adventures as written, or do they need to just clank down the visor of their helm, draw their sword, and start swinging? Part of the code is "help those in need" as long as they don't use that help for evil or chaotic ends. And its true that some of these "bad guys" aren't threatening or harming innocents. But is that enough to override the prohibition of working with evil creatures? Or is accepting a non-evil quest from an evil creature not "allying" with them? I'm just looking for some opinions on these wacky and awesome, but slightly problematic, scenarios!
Some examples (spoilers for player courtesy):
The skull of ghoul royalty: ghouls ask for help against gugs. Evil creatures asking for help fighting evil creatures. And technically using detect evil reveals at least the leng ghouls (and possibly some of the class leveled regular ghouls) are MORE evil than the gugs.
The red webbed foot: Again, helping ghouls against other creatures that are technically less evil. That said, the ghouls aren't hurting anyone (at least the ones that try diplomacy arent) and don't seem to have any plans to in the immediate future.
The ambassador's heartstone: A night hag, explicitly involved in the soul trade. About as bottom of barrel evil as it gets. How does this even get past the room description before the paladin says "I smite her"?
So, how can things be presented that a paladin can even go to the dreamlands without being constantly placed in positions to break their code of conduct? Or am I being overly harsh on the paladin?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
“While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code.”
Personally, I read that as saying the paladin won’t adventure with evil creatures—I.e. the paladin won’t stay in a party with an evil PC. Just doing a task for an evil creature shouldn’t cause a problem, unless the task itself is evil (or the creature will somehow use your assistance to further it’s evil ends).
As to the specific elements of the adventure:
The PCs are actually encouraged to go up into the rafters and fight the ettercaps, so this doesn’t seem like a problem.
Additionally, IIRC, murdering the night hag is also a perfectly legitimate approach to getting the heartstone.
As to the two ghoul encounters, nothing they ask the party to do is actually evil, so while going along with their suggestion might make the paladin uncomfortable, it shouldn’t make them fall.
On top of all that, the PCs don’t need to get all 7 items to succeed at the adventure. If one or two missions offend the paladin’s sensibilities, they’re welcome to skip it. They’ll miss out on the nice ability score bump, but hey, that’s the cost of playing a paladin
I banned Paladins for this reason, but a player really wanted to play one, and they missed a few oportunities because of these. A paladin certainly has a moral problem making deals with evil monsters, which means problems in half of Paizo APs.
Be it a Nosferatu, a Red Dragon, boggards, or counts controlled by leng spiders, Paizo loves to put evil monsters that can help you for soMe reasons if you can stomach dealing with them. Which is an idea I love, but doesn't work with paladins.
However, remember that Attonement exists
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins can work with evil creatures for the greater good. They just have to be on their way as soon as the alliance is over. That is what the "...Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.", clause of the paladin code is for.
As an example if evil #1 can help the paladin solve a quest, but he wants the paladin to kill evil #2 that is fine, assuming that helping evil #1 won't knowing lead to worse things happening.
|
I banned paladins when I ran Strange Aeons too, not only for the reasons other people listed, but also because I think a big part of the AP is the PCs coming to terms with the fact that they are (or were) genuinely bad people.
the pc's should all have had some role in lowl's bizarre entourage.
His masseuse, his hairdresser, his cook, his taxidermy, etc.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
True.
But what I’m saying is, I think the AP works best if the characters are flawed in their own right, not simply tainted by association with Lowls. In particular, that helps sell some stuff in book 6.
I had my players write each other’s backstories (which I kept secret until they got their memories back). One of my instructions for them was “include some moral failing”.
I banned paladins when I ran Strange Aeons too, not only for the reasons other people listed, but also because I think a big part of the AP is the PCs coming to terms with the fact that they are (or were) genuinely bad people.
I agree to a large extent. I got the impression that they were at least nongood, even if they weren't evil also. I think Paizo left it open so that each GM could make his own choices.
I might run it soon, and I will likely suggest a dark past, but I won't ban anything*. The PC could have been on the path of redemption when they were betrayed. <---That is just for my games.
*subject to change :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running it with the "full reset" interpretation of the amnesia, rather than the "retracing steps" version. The paladin of Sarenrae was a cutthroat slayer in his past life who actually had a personal vendetta against Sarenites for refusing to cure his syphilis. (Aside: they totally would have, if he hadn't cut in line at the temple and then brawled with the guards when they called him on it. Still would have after if he'd just got back in line, but by then he was so pissed he sulked off and got murderous.)
That's why A: the character had drawn Sarerae's attention and B: had a bag full of holy symbols and prayer books in his personal possession. Waking up with no memory, he assumed he was a faithful fellow, put on his armor, and picked up his scimitar (which he stole FROM a paladin of Sarenrae). He's slowly discovered hints about how he wasn't a nice person, but it just gives him more conviction to make amends. Just found out about the scimitar, is making plans to return it to the family of its previous owner.
Other PCs have similar swaps: The monk used to be a skald, the witch was a kineticest, and the psychic used to be a summoner.
Its made for lots of fun scenes with object readings, discovered journals and doctors note, and talking to NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used the same approach.
The paladin was a thug and a bully. She has the «guilt» trait. She was the one that killed the revenant. She became a paladin after her soul was trapped by Mad Poet. Her mirror reflect was actually an antipaladin.
Pharasma inquisitor was similar in some aapwcts. He was a penitent in an ustalavian pharasmin order, but did not get spells from it. He fell into Lowlz's lapand became an inquisitor of Hastur, out of spite.
Btw: i let the player play Paladin, but he had to remove the fear inmunity. She has +4 to fear, but not inmunity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw: i let the player play Paladin, but he had to remove the fear inmunity. She has +4 to fear, but not inmunity.
why not just make them take an archetype which replaces aura of courage?
Like Holy Tactician or Divine Hunter?
Player gets their Paladin and you keep your scary.
Btw: i let the player play Paladin, but he had to remove the fear inmunity. She has +4 to fear, but not inmunity.why not just make them take an archetype which replaces aura of courage?
Like Holy Tactician or Divine Hunter?
Player gets their Paladin and you keep your scary.
Because the player wanted to play a specific archetype (Sacred Shield) which is not compatible by default with those other archetypes.
|
|
Because the player wanted to play a specific archetype (Sacred Shield) which is not compatible by default with those other archetypes.Btw: i let the player play Paladin, but he had to remove the fear inmunity. She has +4 to fear, but not inmunity.why not just make them take an archetype which replaces aura of courage?
Like Holy Tactician or Divine Hunter?
Player gets their Paladin and you keep your scary.
ah. i was thinking there was an easy compromise to be had.
still... i think it's worth suggesting as a means forward.
Because the player wanted to play a specific archetype (Sacred Shield) which is not compatible by default with those other archetypes.Btw: i let the player play Paladin, but he had to remove the fear inmunity. She has +4 to fear, but not inmunity.why not just make them take an archetype which replaces aura of courage?
Like Holy Tactician or Divine Hunter?
Player gets their Paladin and you keep your scary.
ah. i was thinking there was an easy compromise to be had.
still... i think it's worth suggesting as a means forward.
I'm preparing to start the ap after the new year, and have a Paladin pc lined up. I'm using the Fear rules from Horror Adventures and will just use their suggestion where fear immunity becomes resistance instead; in this case that pc simply uses a lower tier of fear effect.
And I look at it that Paladins and Clerics (and other classes who might be super LG types) will have extra role playing opportunities due to the moral grayness that permeates much of the campaign. I think between the guilt/forgiveness traits and me simply not hardlining the moral compass there won't be situations requiring multiple atonement spells (unless the LG pc actively crosses even the blurry lines).|
|
Because the player wanted to play a specific archetype (Sacred Shield) which is not compatible by default with those other archetypes.Btw: i let the player play Paladin, but he had to remove the fear inmunity. She has +4 to fear, but not inmunity.why not just make them take an archetype which replaces aura of courage?
Like Holy Tactician or Divine Hunter?
Player gets their Paladin and you keep your scary.
ah. i was thinking there was an easy compromise to be had.
still... i think it's worth suggesting as a means forward.
I'm preparing to start the ap after the new year, and have a Paladin pc lined up. I'm using the Fear rules from Horror Adventures and will just use their suggestion where fear immunity becomes resistance instead; in this case that pc simply uses a lower tier of fear effect.
And I look at it that Paladins and Clerics (and other classes who might be super LG types) will have extra role playing opportunities due to the moral grayness that permeates much of the campaign. I think between the guilt/forgiveness traits and me simply not hardlining the moral compass there won't be situations requiring multiple atonement spells (unless the LG pc actively crosses even the blurry lines).
there's not a ton of moral grey to the campaign if you approach it with SMITE EVIL. it's just a lot of stuff that needs smiting.
it's only if you come at it from the middle that you can see the grey, methinks. otherwise, its a lot of black.
i mean, i love me some lg paladins. they get a bad rap from many. but this isn't the time to bust that out. it's out of sync thematically - part of the reason i loved the pc choices in the ap's artwork: witch, investigator, oracle, medium.
remember: you are a bad guy, or at least a crappy guy, or someone who was willing to go along with a bunch of nutter weird stuff, when the ap starts. you weren't going to be a paladin when lowl's wiped your memory, and you aren't going to have your paladin powers restored just because your memory is a bit fuzzy, methinks.
there's not a ton of moral grey to the campaign if you approach it with SMITE EVIL. it's just a lot of stuff that needs smiting.
Yes, there is a lot of moral grey. My group laugh a bit at the paladin, because I'm being VERY lenient with him (otherwise he'll need an attonement every other day or so). They always remind him that time he fed a ghoul in the Assylum, to make the ghoul cooperate and tell them a few things about what was going on.
There are some moral grey stuff that can be avoided with SMITE EVIL!! approach, such as In Search of Sanity, where a couple of times you face humans transforming into ghouls, or imprisoned ghouls, that you can help and get info, which is morally difficult for righteous people such as a paladin. Same goes with missing a few dream quests, or making them the hard way (and risk to fail because the hard way is truly hard), or when you have to make deals with morally questionable creatures such as ghosts, attend to vampire's parties, or help alien creatures that might be Lawful Neutral in alignment nominally, but spend their lives sequestering the bodies of other people through mind swap, using them to explore the world, with the mind of the poor mortal trapped in an alien body which they don't understand, confined into coffins, breaking their minds and becoming mad, and then have their memories wiped before their minds are swapped back, after being robbed of YEARS without their loved ones. But that's the easy part. A Paladin could choose not to accept the help of any of them, and burn them all with smite evil. It will make things harder, it will impose the Paladin's player will over the other players who might want to do something different, but that's the Paladin's quirk. They always impose their method over whatever else the group wants.
The hard part is unavoidable. Such as: you have to actually read the Necronomicon, an absolutely evil book, and risk your sanity, moral compass, and soul, to be able to perform an Occult Ritual created by the cult of an Evil God, against the opinion of at least two LG celestials that tell you not to do so. To ignore those celestials, who came from heaven to tell you what to do with the book, and/or KILL them, so you can dip yourself into dark knowledge and read things taht aren't meant to be read by mortals, is the right thing to do, but it is not the Lawful Good thing to do.
Paladins don't mix well with lovecraftian style horror adventures, because lovecraftian heroes dabble into the unknown, dark, maddening secrets in order to be able to stop even more occult, darker, crazier creatures.
|
|
there's not a ton of moral grey to the campaign if you approach it with SMITE EVIL. it's just a lot of stuff that needs smiting.Yes, there is a lot of moral grey. My group laugh a bit at the paladin, because I'm being VERY lenient with him (otherwise he'll need an attonement every other day or so). They always remind him that time he fed a ghoul in the Assylum, to make the ghoul cooperate and tell them a few things about what was going on.
** spoiler omitted **...
if he can't make it out of the asylum w/o compromising his soul, how is he going to be able to do the rest of the campaign?
here's an idea
when he starts to learn more about himself, he finds out that he HAD been a paladin in the past, a paragon of good and justice. And then he had this conversation with this mad brilliant genius who talked about marvels that could change the world.
and he ended up in the service of the Count, which, of course, led to him doing some bad things and getting ex-paladined.
now, he comes into the fugue state, and he doesn't remember all the bad he did. and he's not remembering the bad person he became. and for that brief moment, he wasn't that person anymore. he was the paladin of XXX.
but now he's compromised. just like before. but now, unlike then, he's got a whole adventure path to figure out where to go from here. does he make the difficult choice to struggle back to where he came from? or does he take the dark road he did before? is there a third path?
letting him use paladin powers while abandoning paladin codes does him and the story no good. at this point, a single level of ex-paladin won't cripple his character, especially if he goes into fighter from here out, and man, that would be a fun story to wrap your head around.
was the guy good and got corrupted? was he always going to end up in the bad way? you got until Carcosa to figure it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, he CAN get out if Assylum. It is just that some encounters, designed to firve players argue if it is correct to help an evil monster in exchange of useful info, ussually end as «forget it, we have a paladin». That's the entire problem with paladins, they shutdown options. The problem is not that they adhere tp a code, but that they force the party to do so. No player can be Wolverine or The Punisher or Hulk, because Superman loses his powers if he os not the Big Boy Scout.
The paladin in my group failed to protect her adoptive fathers and they died. Lowlz recruited her and she become an antipaladin, acting as Lowlz's thug. After the fugue state she was chosen by Torag to becone a paladin of protection, in an attempt to redeem her, and she started to remember with guilt what happpened under Lowlz, but the past is not the hard part. The hard part comes way later:
The little bit part of reading the darkest and evilest book ever to perform a ritual designed by an evil god who calls himself the Unspeakable One, in the epitome of «have to use evil and dark knowldge to fight evil and dark gods». PC can ignore making deals with Ghouls of Leng, Ghosts, Yithian an other weirds. Makes the job harder, but doable. They HAVE to read Necronomicon, against the advice of LG celestials who tell them not to. And that should make Paladins fall.
Which is why Attonement exists